California Bill Proposes Removing Cops Who Express Religious Or Conservative Beliefs

[Psychic Missile]

Nor is it my responsibility to spoon feed you what you can easily find on your own, if you're actually interested.

You're the one who responded to my question to another poster without intending to offer an answer, resulting in a derail you full well knew wouldn't go anywhere.

[Cow Poke]

You're the one who responded to my question to another poster without intending to offer an answer, resulting in a derail you full well knew wouldn't go anywhere.

Freedom of speech.

[myth]

What makes you think that liberals are afraid to say anything negative about Muslims?

The absence of prominent liberal voices doing so, coupled with a strident defense of the Muslim community when people unfairly criticize them. Compared with the frequent criticism of Christians by prominent liberal voices, and the lack of any comparable defense when people (often liberals) unfairly criticize Christian beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

The absence of prominent liberal voices doing so, coupled with a strident defense of the Muslim community when people unfairly criticize them. Compared with the frequent criticism of Christians by prominent liberal voices, and the lack of any comparable defense when people (often liberals) unfairly criticize Christian beliefs.

Yeah, that!

[Gondwanaland]

The absence of prominent liberal voices doing so, coupled with a strident defense of the Muslim community when people unfairly criticize them. Compared with the frequent criticism of Christians by prominent liberal voices, and the lack of any comparable defense when people (often liberals) unfairly criticize Christian beliefs.

Combined with prominent liberal organizations like the SPLC labeling former Muslims and Muslim-reformers(Raheel Raza, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, etc.) as being part of their 'hate list' for speaking against Islam/parts of Islam

[myth]

Combined with prominent liberal organizations like the SPLC labeling former Muslims and Muslim-reformers(Raheel Raza, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz, etc.) as being part of their 'hate list' for speaking against Islam/parts of Islam

Sure. Of course, if memory serves, the SPLC has also placed Christian organizations on watchlists because of traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality....because apparently the SPLC has zero understanding of how to differentiate between basic concepts like the difference between 'tolerance' and 'active support', nor are they apparently able to understand that some people/groups have sincerely held religious beliefs BUT also do not advocate discriminating against those groups. So it's kinda like the SPLC putting me on a watchlist for saying "the SPLC is stupid". I'm not suggesting any action, but those idiots want to put people on watchlists simply for having an opinion.

[rogue06]

Sure. Of course, if memory serves, the SPLC has also placed Christian organizations on watchlists because of traditional Christian beliefs about homosexuality....because apparently the SPLC has zero understanding of how to differentiate between basic concepts like the difference between 'tolerance' and 'active support', nor are they apparently able to understand that some people/groups have sincerely held religious beliefs BUT also do not advocate discriminating against those groups. So it's kinda like the SPLC putting me on a watchlist for saying "the SPLC is stupid". I'm not suggesting any action, but those idiots want to put people on watchlists simply for having an opinion.

The same with abortion. Like when the Southern Poverty Law Center branded the Family Research Council (FRC), a mainstream conservative think tank founded by James Dobson a "hate group" on par with Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church. And thanks specifically to that designation, an armed gunman, Floyd Corkins II, entered FRC's Washington D.C. headquarters in 2012 and opened fire wounding one before Corkins was wrestled to the ground and disarmed.

Corkins, a gay activist who volunteered at a LGBT community center, told the FBI agent interviewing him that he picked the FRC to attack because they were on the SPLC's list of anti-gay "hate groups."

The SPLC strenuously defended their actions because, get this, the FRC takes a political stance that they disagree with. That was enough to earn them being listed as a hate group. Meanwhile groups like Black Lives Matter chant things like "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" and "What do we want? Dead cops!" at their protests but the SPLC sees nothing wrong with that and even say they are merely "activists for racial justice." This is one of the reasons why the SPLC has lost credibility even including among many liberals. And why the FBI will no longer associate with them

Oh. Btw. The attack on FRC was judged not to be a terroristic act which is typical if the victim is conservative.

[Roy]

...
The bill defines hate speech as “as advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.
...

So which of those applies to conservatives and Christians? Do they advocate
1) violence, or
2) genocide, or
3) denial of constitutional rights?

[Bill the Cat]

So which of those applies to conservatives and Christians? Do they advocate
1) violence, or
2) genocide, or
3) denial of constitutional rights?

Many on the left think #3

[Roy]

Many on the left think #3

That's not an answer. What many of the left think is not legally binding. Nor have you given any reason to think they are wrong.

I'm left wondering why you didn't say "None of them".

[Bill the Cat]

That's not an answer. What many of the left think is not legally binding. Nor have you given any reason to think they are wrong.

I'm left wondering why you didn't say "None of them".

When left leaning judges and lawmakers are in charge of determining what they interpret as "constitutional" and the intent of Christians and/or Republicans, I most certainly am accurate in saying that many on the left say #3. Do you need some quotes to make you feel better?

[rogue06]

Many on the left think #3

Considering the left's love of calling anything said they don't like that they can't call "hate speech" a "microaggresion" I'd go with #2.

[Roy]

When left leaning judges and lawmakers are in charge of determining what they interpret as "constitutional" and the intent of Christians and/or Republicans, I most certainly am accurate in saying that many on the left say #3. Do you need some quotes to make you feel better?

No, but you might consider the impact of your reluctance to say that conservatives/Christians do not advocate denying constitutional rights to some groups.

[Bill the Cat]

No, but you might consider the impact of your reluctance to say that conservatives/Christians do not advocate denying constitutional rights to some groups.

Because I disagree with some things deemed a "right" when the Constitution says no such thing.

[Roy]

Because I disagree with some things deemed a "right" when the Constitution says no such thing.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Conservative/Christians object to this bill because they advocate denying rights to certain groups, and those rights are considered by some to be constitutional.

Is that correct?